Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Mar 20: The Delhi High Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure over the Centre’s failure to address a legal gap in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which allegedly leaves men and the LGBTQ+ community without adequate protection against sexual assault.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that despite its August 28, 2024 direction to take a “holistic view” on the issue, the Centre had failed to act even after more than 1.5 years.
“The direction was issued in August 2024, and we are now in March 2026. A period of 1.5 years is sufficient to decide on the representation; however, the decision is nowhere in sight,” the bench observed.
The court restored the petition filed by Gantavya Gulati, which had earlier been disposed of in 2024 with liberty to revive it in case of delay. It has now directed the Centre to file an affidavit within four weeks detailing steps taken to comply with its earlier order.
Gulati informed the court that despite repeated follow-ups, no decision had been taken by the government. He argued that the BNS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), does not contain provisions penalising forced “unnatural sex,” creating a legal void that particularly affects LGBTQ individuals.
He urged the court to either restore provisions similar to Section 377 of the IPC or adopt a gender-neutral interpretation of rape laws to ensure protection for all victims.
Section 377 earlier criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and prescribed stringent punishment. In the landmark Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India ruling, the Supreme Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relations, while maintaining penalties for non-consensual acts.
The petitioner contended that under the current BNS framework, a man sexually assaulted by another man lacks a clear legal remedy and may be unable to file a first information report.
Responding to the court, the Centre’s counsel said the issue was sensitive and required consultations with multiple stakeholders. He added that the decision-making process was ongoing and would take more time.
The court, however, emphasised that there cannot be a vacuum in law, particularly in matters concerning protection of vulnerable groups.